Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

it is said, "truly God is good to Israel, even to such as are of a clean heart," notwithstanding the severe afflictions, with which they are visited,-a passage which bears upon the verse before us, inasmuch as the limiting clause shows that by Israel we are to understand the election alone, the true Israelites, in whom there is no guile, to the exclusion of the false seed.-In ver. 1 Israel is mentioned; in vers. 2-9 Jerusalem and Judah; in ver. 10 sqq. the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The reason of this variation, which is evidently not accidental, is the following: Israel the most sacred name is placed, with the strongest emphasis, at the head. It is afterwards scrupulously avoided, to render it the more conspicuous, that it is used here in an emphatic sense. In vers. 2-9 the covenant-nation is designated Judah and Jerusalem,-a combination for which Zechariah shews a strong predilection in the first part also. (Compare i. 12, ii. 2, where Israel, the sacred name, is placed side by side with Judah and Jerusalem, and ii. 16). This may be accounted for, from the circumstances of the times succeeding the captivity, when Judah took the lead unconditionally, and the other tribes attached themselves to it. That Israel does not merely mean Judah here, but that Judah, on the contrary, is the name given to the whole nation, is evident from chap. x., where the return of Joseph and Ephraim is depicted. The latter cannot be regarded as excluded in this instance. Lastly, the change of name in ver. 10 sqq. shows that the Church is regarded there from a different point of view.-The predicates connected with the name of God serve at the outset to allay any doubts that might arise from the discrepancy, between the promise and the actual circumstances, by pointing to the omnipotence of the author of the former. What is here implied, is explicitly stated in chap. viii. 6: "if it be marvellous in the eyes of the remnant of this people in these days, should it also be marvellous in mine eyes? saith the Lord of hosts."1 The par

1 There is a parallel in Is. xlii. 5, "Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens and stretched them out, he that spread forth the earth and that which cometh out of it, he that giveth bread to the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein." The two passages cannot be unconnected. For not only are the three points mentioned the same in both, but they occur in the same order and the context is the same. In both passages the omnipotence of God is appealed to as the guarantee of the certain realization of the

ticiples and are not to be understood as referring

[ocr errors]

exclusively to the past. In direct opposition to the mechanical view of the works of God, as standing, when once created, in just the same relation to Him as a house to the builder, the upholding of these works is represented in the Scriptures as being, in a certain sense, a continuous creation. Every day God spreads out the heavens, every day He lays the foundations of the earth, which would wander from its orbit and fall into ruins if it were not upheld by His power. The last predicate, also, does not refer merely to the first creation of the spirit of man, but to the constant exertion of the power of God both to create and to sustain. The formation of the human spirit is brought forward here with peculiar prominence as one of the many works of the almighty power of God, because this is the ground of the unrestrained and constant influence which is exerted upon the spirits of men, by Him who "turns the hearts of kings as the waterbrooks." Why should not the creator of the spirits of all men, the "God of the spirits of all flesh" (Num. xvi. 22, xxvii. 16), be able to smite all the riders of the enemy with blindness, and fill the leaders of his people with holy boldness, as he is represented as doing in vers. 4 and 6 ?

Ver. 2. "Behold, I make Jerusalem a basin of reeling to all the nations round about, and even over Judah it will be, in the siege against Jerusalem."

occurs indisputably in Ex. xii. 22, and several other passages in the sense of " basin." The reason why a basin is introduced here in the place of the cup, which we find in the earlier passage upon which this is based, has been plausibly explained by Schmieder thus: "a basin, to which many may put their mouths so as to sip and drink at the same time." has the same meaning as an in the earlier passage, "reeling," "giddiby ness." The giddiness is regarded here as a state in which the bodily strength is weakened. The point of comparison is the helplessness and misery of the condition. The cup of giddiness

Messianic salvation. As proofs that Isaiah is the earlier of the two, we may mention, first, that it is a customary thing with Isaiah to introduce such epithets in connexion with the name of God, especially in the second part, in accordance with the character of his commission as expressed in the words, "Comfort ye, comfort ye, my people;" and secondly, that Zechariah refers to such passages as these, of an earlier date, in almost every verse.

is frequently used as a symbol of the judgment of God, which places men in this condition. Thus in Ps. lxxv. 9, "for in the hand of the Lord there is a cup, and it foams with wine, it is full of mixture, and he pours out, and even the dregs thereof the wicked of the earth must swallow and drink." The reference here is to the judgments, which God prepares for the heathen world on account of their oppression of his people and his kingdom. See further Is. li. 17, 22, 23. "Awake, awake, O Jerusalem, which hast drunk at the hand of the Lord the cup of his fury, thou hast drunk the dregs of the cup of giddiness, and wrung them out. Behold, I take out of thy hand the cup of giddiness, the dregs of the cup of my fury; thou shalt no more drink it again. And I will put it into the hand of them that afflict thee, which have said to thy soul, bow down," &c. When Jerusalem, subsequent to the coming of the good shepherd, in other words, the Church of Christ, is represented here as being a cup of giddiness to all nations round about, that is to the whole surrounding heathen world, this can only mean that their attacks upon Jerusalem will be followed by such judgments from the hand of God, as will deprive them of all their strength. He who presents the cup of giddiness, as the earlier passages prove, can be no other than God himself, whose judgments begin indeed at the house of God, but never continue to press as a "burden" upon it. In the description given of the enemies there is a gradation. Here they are called "all nations round about;" in ver. 3, first "all nations," and then, "all the nations of the earth." We are introduced here to a state of things, such as never existed under the Old Testament. It was for the name of Christ that Israel was first hated of all nations. Its earlier conflicts with the heathen world had all been with particular nations. The kingdom of God was first involved in a general conflict with the heathen world, when it put forth world-wide claims, and, not content with defending its own existence, assumed the attitude of a conqueror. According to one of the explanations most generally adopted, the meaning of the second part is that Judah also will be constrained by the enemy, and take part in the siege of Jerusalem. The supporters of this view are obliged to invent

1 This explanation is adopted in the Chaldee paraphrase, and also by Jerome, "but Judah also, when Jerusalem is besieged, is taken by the heathen,

יהיה after מצור We cannot supply

historical details, of which there is not only not the slightest indication in the text, but rather the very opposite. Again, nothing is gained by appealing to chap. xiv. 14; for when the verse is correctly rendered, there is no allusion whatever to any conflict between Judah and Jerusalem.1 The true rendering is this: also over Judah it will come in the siege against Jerusalem. Luther's translation is substantially correct: "it will also affect Judah, when Jerusalem is besieged." The subject to is to be obtained in part from, burden, in part also from the first clause. If Jerusalem is made a cup of giddiness, its own severe suffering is presupposed. We 1 can only apply to a fortress, not to a country (see Deut. xx. 20). Hofmann supposes the country population to have taken refuge in the city. But this is precluded by what follows, where Judah is represented as acting independently of Jerusalem. Judah and Jerusalem are apparently contrasted here, as the inferior and superior portions of the covenant nation;—a similar distinction is made in ver. 8, within Jerusalem itself, between the house of David and the rest of the inhabitants. The type of this distinction lay before the prophet in the relation in which Jerusalem, the civil and religious capital, stood to the rest of Judah, which had formerly looked up to it with wonder and admiration, and still continued to do so (see, for example

and entering into alliance with them, is compelled to besiege its own capital." There are only two ways, in which this explanation has been defended with any plausibility. The first is that of Michaelis, to which Rosenmüller and Ewald subscribe, "but it will also be over Judah (ie., it will lie upon Judah, even Judah will be held or forced) in the siege," &c. The second is the one adopted by Kimchi, Hitzig, Maurer, and others, "but it (the cup of giddiness) will also be upon Judah, when it shall be compelled to come to the siege against Jerusalem," or else, "but even for Judah, Jerusalem is such a cup of giddiness." It is a sufficient reply to both of these, however, that there is not the slightest indication in what follows of any participation on the part of Judah in the siege of Jerusalem; on the contrary Judah is represented as the ally of Jerusalem, by whose victories, obtained through the help of the Lord, Jerusalem is to be delivered.

This argument tells all the more powerfully against the explanation given by Kimchi; for according to this, Judah is visited by severe punishment from God for its forced participation in the siege, whereas there is nothing but salvation announced in the verses which follow. A special objection to the exposition given by Michaelis may be found in the fact, that although his rendering of is not in itself untenable (see Ezek. xlv. 17; Ps. lvi. 13), it is inadmissible here, on account of the parallelism of Judah and Jerusalem, which precludes the adoption of a different rendering in the one case from that given in the other.

Ps. cxxii. and lxxxvii. 2, "The Lord loveth the gates of Zion more than all the dwellings of Jacob.") Very little can be said in favour of the idea that this contrast, which we meet with in the first part as well (chap. i. 12, ii. 16), is to be taken with strict literality, especially in the case of Zechariah, the character of whose prophecies is throughout figurative and symbolical. The contrast serves merely to prepare the way for the announcement which follows, that the Lord will first of all deliver the weakest and most helpless portion of the covenant nation, in order that it may be all the more apparent that the rescue is His work.

Ver. 3. "And it will come to pass the same day, I will make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all nations, all who lift it will be torn in pieces, and all the heathen of the earth are gathered together against it."

The figure of a heavy stone, which causes sprains and dislocations to those who overrate their strength and try to lift it, is so lucid in itself1, that there is no reason to suppose, as most commentators have done, that there is a direct allusion to a custom, which Jerome says was very general in Palestine in his day, of lifting heavy stones as a trial of strength. Schmieder observes here with perfect accuracy, "thus did the heathen of the Roman empire attempt to lift the burdensome stone' of the Christian Church, by slaying the witnesses for Christ; but the heathenism of Rome bled to death of the wounds, which this 'burdensome stone' inflicted in return." But when he adds, "it cannot yet be determined with certainty, whether reference is made to the literal siege of a Christian Jerusalem, or whether the figure of a siege is merely the symbol of a hostile attack upon the heart of the Christian life," we must beg leave to differ from him. If the fulfilment commences with the death of the anointed one, Jerusalem can only stand for the centre of the Christian Church. And we are also led to this conclusion by the fact that in chap. xi. the whole of the holy land, and therefore of course the literal Jerusalem, is represented as given up to total desolation. A real conflict between the city of Jerusalem and all the nations of the earth is in itself a very improbable thing. We have evi

1 "Damnum non sentiens, ipse magnum damnum iis affert." Marck.

VOL. IV.

E

« ForrigeFortsæt »